Dear Folks,
This is an idea that I have been toying with since 1999.
Establishment of small scale (about 5~10kl per day Bio Diesel plants) to be owned and operated by alternate fuel users and enthusiast.
There has been people like ABG and many more across the globe who are looking at setting up big units only.However to improve the economy on a micro level and sharing of wealth concept inclusive of everyone doing there share to keep planet earth clean.Such micro module plants that cater to a particular community or region can be established at developed at ease.
For example we have all states Bio Diesel forum .Individuals all trying to cook their own BD.
If we collectively take a stand to make our bio diesel for each region .Intially with the feed available and at the same time look at the options of other feed that can be developed region specific ...like may it be Jatropha,canola,mustard,lard,tallow or other seed bearing fruits that can be cultivated keeping sight of our long time goal of have local control of production and most importantly costs.
This is what they have been very successfully implementing in India.True the labour cost in India is low.But I am sure that we can work something out OZ wide.
Look forward to everyones thoughts.........

Every country town/suburb having their own BD browser and hopefully a small continuous BD plant.

A dream indeed......

Billyh

11th March 2006, 12:47 PM

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Anyone else in the Hornsby area interested?
:confused: :confused:

Robert

12th March 2006, 10:51 PM

I like the idea too. I'd love to see little community groups appearing with biodiesel cooperatives. Each member sharing time, storage space, feedstock collection, processing, waste disposal etc. Unfortunately there are many obstacles in Aus with our very shortsighted tax rulings asking for excise to be paid unless one can prove that one is making Biodiesel to the Australian standard, which is prohibitively expensive to prove for a small scale set up.
If anyone has positive or practical suggestions on how to still do this bearing the above in mind, I'd love to hear them and certainly also to help implement them in my own community and others.
I'm tired of just complaining about it and I'd love to find a way to do it properly, legally and in a way that can be openly advertised and promoted to the public.

glenos

13th March 2006, 10:51 AM

what testing is required to show that the product meets the Australian std?

The expensive part of analysis is the operators time generally, there can be high capital costs but this not always the case. When I was working as a chemist my bill out rate was $125/hr, I didn't even get 1/5th of that :rolleyes:

With some basic equipment, manuals (methods) and training could an average Home brewer test to show compliance?

glen

Robert

13th March 2006, 12:14 PM

As I understand it, it has to be done by a govt certified lab. I believe that each test costs around $2,000 and requires 4L. I also heard that there are no certified test labs in NSW, so you have to send them to VIC. Could someone with some more information on this please pipe up?

Cheers,

Sauman

13th March 2006, 05:10 PM

G Day Folks,
It so good to see this forum is taking interest in the idea of having small sustainable BD plants.
I am not sure to which specs does Aus follow with regards to testing.
In India they are sticking to the requirement as per ASTM norms.
I wasn't aware that there does not exist a Lab in NSW for testing.Which I think can be easily overcome by putting up a collective /community laboratory(even get the Govt to fund it)...till the same is up and ready we could have the test done in any NABL registered Lab offshore.The advantage would be cost saving.
I attached the ASTM specs and material balances of different feed source along with a Bloc dia showing the essential+a degumming section which has to be incorporated if we are to achieve specification as per ASTM.

But yes it is definetly possible to have community refining as is being implemented in India.......
Look forward to more interests on the matter.
If anyone in this forum wants more details please feel free to give me a call or mail.

Cheers
Sauman

India Mob:+91-9339227130

liquidgold

22nd March 2006, 02:38 AM

That block diagram is a fair size can't remember seeing one like it, even when I was studying the conneman CD and super critical processes. Anyway simple tests do exist that will give an inidcation of close to ASTM compliance. Just the way you are making it(including what you are making it in and the quality of everything used) is likely to indicate ASTM compliance. Measure the viscosity and sepecific gravity is the most important thing since it determines good combustion. After that you have unreacted FFA, reaction completion, water content, particle contamination etc.

If someone was offering to sell me biodiesel that hadn't yet met spec I would measure its specific gravity and viscosity. Now measuring weight accurately isn't that difficult is it. Simple viscosity testers are avaliable. Followed by a visual inspection (After I have let is sit for a few hours to make sure no layers form) of a sample in a one litre bottle, if it is crystal clear its okay. Finally I would burn the sample (or some of it) in a container and then check for no left over residue, this is the part I would charge $2000 for it is quite dangerous, though it is fun. After I have purchased It might then perform a simple cleansing and purification(this includes filtration) that pretty much guarentee's ASTM spec.

These steps would be fine by me as long as I could get a sample from near the bottom of the holding container after it has been agitated significantly. The larger the container the more samples I would like.

Their are a few things in the ASTM spec I am not sure about like free and dissolved water, the ASTM spec couldn't be referring to dissolved water in my opinion, maybe it is.

Healthy Earth

15th June 2006, 06:30 PM

I am very involved with Australian farming.
What I see is the Aussie farmer slipping further and further behind, fuel costs are a large part of that.
I envision that the future of profitable farming will also include producing their own fuel, for tractors, trucks, electicity generators, pumps harvesters etc. They use heaps of fuel !!
They can grow and harvest the oil crop easily, but crushing or extracting oil is different. That is probably the difficult part for them...any suggestions?
Many farmers plow excess or spoiled crops back into the ground, this would be good for ethanol production and then there is hydrogen fuel...cheap sustainable and powerful.
Every farm should have one
Peter

Sauman

15th June 2006, 06:37 PM

I am very involved with Australian farming.
What I see is the Aussie farmer slipping further and further behind, fuel costs are a large part of that.SO TRUE!!!
I envision that the future of profitable farming will also include producing their own fuel, for tractors, trucks, electicity generators, pumps harvesters etc. They use heaps of fuel !!Spot on
They can grow and harvest the oil crop easily, but crushing or extracting oil is different. That is probably the difficult part for them...any suggestions?WE NEED TO HAVE A COLLECTIVE FORUM BY MEANS OF WHICH WE CAN SHARE AND HELP THE FARMING COMMUNITY.
LIKE MAYBE HAVING COOP EXPELLING ,COOP PRODUCTION OF FUEL.
Many farmers plow excess or spoiled crops back into the ground, this would be good for ethanol production and then there is hydrogen fuel...cheap sustainable and powerful.
Every farm should have one.SO VERY RIGHT.Lets keep the dream alive.
I know we can do it.And can be done only together.

Peter

Lets work towards that Peter.

Tony From West Oz

16th June 2006, 02:53 AM

I am very involved with Australian farming.
What I see is the Aussie farmer slipping further and further behind, fuel costs are a large part of that.
I envision that the future of profitable farming will also include producing their own fuel, for tractors, trucks, electicity generators, pumps harvesters etc. They use heaps of fuel !!
They can grow and harvest the oil crop easily, but crushing or extracting oil is different. That is probably the difficult part for them...any suggestions?
Many farmers plow excess or spoiled crops back into the ground, this would be good for ethanol production and then there is hydrogen fuel...cheap sustainable and powerful.
Every farm should have one
Peter
I disagree with your closing statement. Hydrogen is currently one of the MOST polluting fuels when the full life cycle is evaluated. In Australia, it is made from Petroleum and the CO2 emissions from the reaction far exceed the perceived benefits of using hydrogen. If you were serious about the environment, the energy required for production of hydrogen, even from solar or wind generation, would be better used to offset coal, oil or gas produced electricity.

Tony

Healthy Earth

16th June 2006, 02:21 PM

I disagree with your closing statement. Hydrogen is currently one of the MOST polluting fuels when the full life cycle is evaluated. In Australia, it is made from Petroleum and the CO2 emissions from the reaction far exceed the perceived benefits of using hydrogen. If you were serious about the environment, the energy required for production of hydrogen, even from solar or wind generation, would be better used to offset coal, oil or gas produced electricity.

Tony

Tony I am not sure if you have got your chemistry right, Hydrogen can be easily made with 3 v dc electrolysis using similar metals such as mild steel. It is produced from water (H 2 0 ). It is not possible to get CO2 from H20.
The interesting thing about this process is that it only takes a very small amount of power to produce hydrogen gas, however the resultant Hydrogen fuel is exponentialy more powerful. In other words the alternator from your car can easily cope with the energy requirements to produce the gas from water via electrolysis to drive the vehicle for thousands of kms. All this from simple god given water . Almost perpetual motion.
Hydrogen can also be produced from a simple chemical reaction that does not require electricity at all!!
So carbon dioxide is not produced at all, in fact in some hydrogen reactions that are used for fuel there is an exhaust of clean oxygen and water.
If you want some more info just google "Browns gas":)

geewizztoo

16th June 2006, 04:54 PM

Phew, well I hardly know where to start with this one.

Firstly, I think you have highlighted the inherent inaccuracies within your own post when you say

Almost perpetual motion.

If it were perpetual motion then we'd all be running electrolysis cells off our alternators.

Did you read any of the stuff from Google about Brown's Gas? Heres a couple of quotes from:

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

On the subject of using electricity to produce Browns gas to fuel an internal combustion engine:

The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability.

and regarding Browns gas used in a fuel cell:

Unfortunately, the electrolysis cell requires an input voltage of around 1.7 volts while a practical hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell generates 1.23 volts in theory and perhaps 0.7 volts in practice. Thus the ratio of output electrical power to input electrical power would be roughly 42%. Operating such a system has no conceivable utility.

Also

Hydrogen can also be produced from a simple chemical reaction that does not require electricity at all!!

The chemicals for this simple reaction have to come from somewhere. The energy used to manufacture these chemicals is greater than energy released.

Tony was referring to the carbon emmisions from the commercial process used to make Hydrogen. Wikipedia states:

Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways but the economically most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (700–1100 °C), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.

CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2

And how do we get the heat to make steam? By burning fossil fuel.

I'm not disagreeing that hydrogen could be used as a fuel source, but there are other renewable energies that have a far greater EROEI, Energy Return On Energy Invested.

Healthy Earth

16th June 2006, 09:05 PM

((Quote)....Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways but the economically most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (700–1100 °C), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
And how do we get the heat to make steam? By burning fossil fuel.))

Sorry, you obviously have not researched modern hydrogen production, I dont think the hydrocarbon method feasable or even reasonable to quote or compare.

As for clean cheap hydrogen production i suppose a picture (video) paints a thousand words and this is just a beginning . click the link http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/waterenginehq.ram
I really couldnt see where they hid the 1100 degree furnace you referred to in your criticism or any fossil fuel.
There are lots more examples of clean cheap Hydrogen production on the net. No its not perpetual motion, but for the moment, its close enough for me.

Chris

17th June 2006, 03:34 PM

((Quote)....Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways but the economically most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (700–1100 °C), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
And how do we get the heat to make steam? By burning fossil fuel.))

Sorry, you obviously have not researched modern hydrogen production, I dont think the hydrocarbon method feasable or even reasonable to quote or compare.

As for clean cheap hydrogen production i suppose a picture (video) paints a thousand words and this is just a beginning . click the link http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/waterenginehq.ram
I really couldnt see where they hid the 1100 degree furnace you referred to in your criticism or any fossil fuel.
There are lots more examples of clean cheap Hydrogen production on the net. No its not perpetual motion, but for the moment, its close enough for me.
Hi there
In reference to Hydrogen as fuel you may have a look at this link which is the only decent as well as scientifically supported that is available
The fact of the matter is that even though this fellows are WAY in front of any one in the world their own $ sums indicate that it not a goer as yet at about $4.50 per kg of Hydrogen They are on the job with a proof of concept already working
The secret of this promising development is on the catalytic material used to convert sugars into hydrogen by dissassociation of the molecules that form the structure of sugar using fairly low pressure and the heat from the exhaust system of the engine
The most interesting part of the whole deal is it is a very good way of producing ethanol as One of teh biggest grain dealers in the world has invested $10M with this guys I wonder why Any way have a look http://www.ecw.org/biomass2power/index.html Yes the picures do tell 1000 words
Chris

Tony From West Oz

18th June 2006, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tony From West Oz
I disagree with your closing statement. Hydrogen is currently one of the MOST polluting fuels when the full life cycle is evaluated. In Australia, it is made from Petroleum and the CO2 emissions from the reaction far exceed the perceived benefits of using hydrogen. If you were serious about the environment, the energy required for production of hydrogen, even from solar or wind generation, would be better used to offset coal, oil or gas produced electricity.

Tony
Tony I am not sure if you have got your chemistry right, Hydrogen can be easily made with 3 v dc electrolysis using similar metals such as mild steel. It is produced from water (H 2 0 ). It is not possible to get CO2 from H20.
The interesting thing about this process is that it only takes a very small amount of power to produce hydrogen gas, however the resultant Hydrogen fuel is exponentialy more powerful. In other words the alternator from your car can easily cope with the energy requirements to produce the gas from water via electrolysis to drive the vehicle for thousands of kms. All this from simple god given water . Almost perpetual motion.
Hydrogen can also be produced from a simple chemical reaction that does not require electricity at all!!
So carbon dioxide is not produced at all, in fact in some hydrogen reactions that are used for fuel there is an exhaust of clean oxygen and water.
If you want some more info just google "Browns gas":)
While it only takes a little bit of electricity to get H2 from H2O, it takes a LOT of energy to get enough to make any useful amount of H2. The you need to pressurise it to obtain sufficient 'energy density' to make it useful as a motive fuel. H2 is one of the great escapees, it leaks from almost any vessel due ti its small molecule size.
Someone else has already explained the chemistry for you.

I still stand by my earlier statement
"If you were serious about the environment, the energy required for production of hydrogen, even from solar or wind generation, would be better used to offset coal, oil or gas produced electricity."

Chris

18th June 2006, 07:59 PM

While it only takes a little bit of electricity to get H2 from H2O, it takes a LOT of energy to get enough to make any useful amount of H2. The you need to pressurise it to obtain sufficient 'energy density' to make it useful as a motive fuel. H2 is one of the great escapees, it leaks from almost any vessel due ti its small molecule size.
Someone else has already explained the chemistry for you.

I still stand by my earlier statement
"If you were serious about the environment, the energy required for production of hydrogen, even from solar or wind generation, would be better used to offset coal, oil or gas produced electricity."
Hi Tony from the west
You are quite right in so far as the traditional way of producing Hydrogen is concerned Have you had a look at the link I have provided in my last post? The most fascinating aspect of this is not really the engine running on hydrogen as well as the genset depicted there It is the fact that the catalyst that is the heart of the system breaks down the sugars incorporated in biomass I have spend quite a bit of time on the research done by the inventors of this catalyst it is a major breakthrough I would not mind some feedback (from both of you fellows) on this
Cheers
Chris

Tony From West Oz

19th June 2006, 03:57 AM

Chris,
While I had not heard of this process before now, I find it strange that they have so little detail on their web site. They do not seem to have anything more than a prototype unit, and they are using it to power a Spark Ignition engine. Why are they not using it to power a Fuel cell?

There is an old saying "If it looks too good to be true, then it probably is."
This does look to me to be pretty close to being "too good to be true".

I am not a chemist, but I believe that the specific energy of glycerol can be calculated and compared with the specidic energy of the H2. I believe that this calculation and the energy inputs to the process will show just how much energy is needed to process glycerol into H2, as suggested on the website.

The same figures could be used to deal with the energy from a sugar solution.

The website makes statements like

The APR process offers:

* Capability to generate multiple fuels and fuel blends tailored to the needs of the power conversion device from renewable biomass-derived feedstocks with the same basic system;
* Significantly lower operating temperatures (250°C v 800°C) enabling easier assimilation into home, office and industrial markets and unmatched energy balances;
* Capability to provide on-demand fuels with low capital equipment requirements;
* Ability to use conventional distribution infrastructure to deliver widely available, low cost feedstocks with little or no safety concerns; and
* Generation of 15 times more hydrogen per gram of catalyst than steam reforming processes.
But this does not give any useful information on the efficiency of the process, the catalyst, not being consumed in the reaction should be a one-off cost.

I think that I will wait for some real data from their process, before I invest my milllions ;) in the company.

Tony

peterlink

19th June 2006, 07:11 PM

Hi Sauman,
It could be a good idea if you have the right feedstock supply. Remebering that “price” is the big factor.
Why don’t you think about setting up a group to invest in producing low cost Jatropha feedstock in Indonesia. We can get up to 20 tons per hectare of seeds (14 tons of oil per hectare). By doing this you can give the big guys more than a run for their money.
Peter

Chris

19th June 2006, 08:41 PM

Chris,
While I had not heard of this process before now, I find it strange that they have so little detail on their web site. They do not seem to have anything more than a prototype unit, and they are using it to power a Spark Ignition engine. Why are they not using it to power a Fuel cell?

There is an old saying "If it looks too good to be true, then it probably is."
This does look to me to be pretty close to being "too good to be true".

I am not a chemist, but I believe that the specific energy of glycerol can be calculated and compared with the specidic energy of the H2. I believe that this calculation and the energy inputs to the process will show just how much energy is needed to process glycerol into H2, as suggested on the website.

The same figures could be used to deal with the energy from a sugar solution.

The website makes statements like
But this does not give any useful information on the efficiency of the process, the catalyst, not being consumed in the reaction should be a one-off cost.

I think that I will wait for some real data from their process, before I invest my milllions ;) in the company.

Tony
Hi Tony
Thank you for your input It is really what this forum is all about If we are to push for a sustainable future we have to be open minded in all aspects of that endeavour as well as biodiesel
I decided to post this link and seek your and Healthy earth's input so as to stop the futile exchange of emails
To qualify that statement of mine I mean the "Brown's Gas" as well as the trailer load of plastic tubs that you have to carry in the back of your motor vehicle to run the dam thing as well as the existing and proven method of producing H from Natural gas or via electrolisys
In all due respect to you Tony it is my considered opinion that if you wish to maintain your current view that is fine with me However if you wish to keep up with current reasearch in H generation as well as results in qualified scientific facts go down on step and see the work done on the catalyst
The web site I posted is the end result of the catalityc cell that was invented by a group of scientists
This device as well as the method of it's operation was approved by their peers via a thesis
Ultimately it was published in the academic press after a further review from the board of the publishing house which consists of scientists
So for me to take on board your comments I find the task fairly hard I am not only not qualified I am not smart enough either It is my view that if one is to go out looking at what is going on in any field of science he should go all the way and find out how on earth did something come about as well as to why it is better than what we currently have
Nevertheless I do thank you for your effort in having input regardless of (in my view) your missplaced cynisysm
By the way I will not invest any thing with these guys It is not the point it is a case of someone going out there identifiyng a good thing and applying the best technology available on the day to practical use
Cheers
Chris

Chris

19th June 2006, 09:15 PM

Chris,
While I had not heard of this process before now, I find it strange that they have so little detail on their web site. They do not seem to have anything more than a prototype unit, and they are using it to power a Spark Ignition engine. Why are they not using it to power a Fuel cell?

There is an old saying "If it looks too good to be true, then it probably is."
This does look to me to be pretty close to being "too good to be true".

I am not a chemist, but I believe that the specific energy of glycerol can be calculated and compared with the specidic energy of the H2. I believe that this calculation and the energy inputs to the process will show just how much energy is needed to process glycerol into H2, as suggested on the website.

The same figures could be used to deal with the energy from a sugar solution.

The website makes statements like
But this does not give any useful information on the efficiency of the process, the catalyst, not being consumed in the reaction should be a one-off cost.

I think that I will wait for some real data from their process, before I invest my milllions ;) in the company.

Tony
Hi Again
I have not answered one of your very good points raised in your mail "Why ain't they using it for a fuel cell"
The current reaserch globally as well as the trend is on "Sulphunited Zirconia" cells (there are a number of spellings on it)
There are a lot of patents already taken out on the process so just reading between the lines they have stayed well away from that
Now the point that you may raise is "What the hell is someone in the biodiesel forum talks about this stuff" Well, curent reasearch in our endeavour, making biodiesel, is on solid catalysts
The best catalyst found so far in converting oils into biodiesel is Sulphated Zirconia (another name same stuff) which is the same stuff that is used in fuel cell's
In my efforts to see what is going on in the biodiesel front I came across this little gem so I have been following the progress What it means to us? It means that we do not have to WASH the stuff once we make it since the acid is in a solid form rather then the liquid kind that we use at present which ultimately at the end of the process is finding its way into the biodiesel therefore the need to wash it out
Who would not be better off Not having to WASH the final product?
What I am saying is that the information on the production of Hydrogen gas come about in my reaserch for a solid catalyst to be applied into the process of making biodiesel It was co incidental that you guys got into the in's and out's of that stuff and I decided to post that link
I will be more precise in answers in the future as well as not getting into an exchange whereby the participants are not prepared to go the extra step in finding out for themselves what is going on
Cheers
Chris

darren leonadas

28th June 2006, 04:09 PM

I am very involved with Australian farming.
What I see is the Aussie farmer slipping further and further behind, fuel costs are a large part of that.
I envision that the future of profitable farming will also include producing their own fuel, for tractors, trucks, electicity generators, pumps harvesters etc. They use heaps of fuel !!
They can grow and harvest the oil crop easily, but crushing or extracting oil is different. That is probably the difficult part for them...any suggestions?
Many farmers plow excess or spoiled crops back into the ground, this would be good for ethanol production and then there is hydrogen fuel...cheap sustainable and powerful.
Every farm should have one
Peter
Lets get back to basics and reality for a moment, I have never in my life seen farm machinery that runs on HYDROGEN!!. From what i can gather from my rural cousins MOST if not ALL farm machinery runs on Diesel.
Rural people need to start growing their own fuel TODAY.!
Because we are in the city, the MBDC mostly reacts WVO from friendly and supportive restaurants, which costs us the huge sum of $0.00 NOTHING.
However to get slack city people off there rectums, we in the club set a price on WVO of 20c per litre. Not much for all the effort of watching a gear pump move 200 litres of WVO from a restaurant 44 to the 44 on my trailer, but it worked. This produced product (BD) that cost us around 55 c per litre to make.
At the recent BAA conference i met with a steering committee of NSW farmers , and i harassed them for an estimated gate price of VVO (virgin VO), and the answer was 40c per litre or about $400 four hundred bucks a tonne. That would produce for us in the club a product that would cost around 75c per litre. Notwithstanding a better yield, as WVO high in FFA produces more glycerine, and a lesser yield which effects our product price.
What farmers need to do is form collectives in regional areas and share in the cooperative ownership of a CRUSH MILL. Then grow on one portion of the farm in a revolving or seasonally moving paddock a minimum of oil crop. The left over meal from crush mill can be used as stock feed, or ploughed back into the soil for organic fertilization.
I would like to see the left over meal mixed with glycerine, ( the byproduct of making BD) to see how that would work as a fertilizer and "surfactant",- (product that traps and saves water in the soil).
Its all up to you rural Australia.
Go WELL.